Thanks for the detailed info! I'm still a bit of a newbie when it comes to these things but I'll it's very educational With that in mind is there any difference in easy-of-use between the CMC8 system and the Audix system? Is it plug-and-play or do I need to use special tools when switching caps and mounting the cables?
No, it's quite easy to use. It looks just like the CA-11 mics from Church, apart from the caps looking a bit different. It's only harder to order, not use, than the CMC-8. It's just mics>battbox>recorder.
As I said before, the Audix mics definitely sound different than the CA-11 and CMC-8. The cardiods, at least, have that bump in the mids and highs that some people are bound to like, because it accentuates the vocals. I have found that at times I like how that works, and at times I did not.
Here's a time I did:
www.nyctaper.com/?p=3964 (streaming song included). This recording of Pavement outdoors was the best of five that Dan Lynch and I did on five successive nights - and two of those other nights we ran DPA 4021s and Neumanns (admittedly from much further back).
And a time I very much did not:
www.nyctaper.com/?p=4074 (also a streaming song). I really hated this recording, even though I was in the sweet spot in an excellent sounding venue. It sounds mushy, too bright, just bad. I was surprised.
There are other samples of me using the Audix on both nyctaper and the LMA. As they aren't my "main" mics I haven't used them tons of times, but I've used them in several different situations with several types of bands. I would be curious what the hypers and omnis sound like, esp because the frequency plot of the hypers is actually flatter than the cards.
I could post pics if you want, but really, if you've seen the CA-11s, you've seen the Audix system. Same size, same capsule housing, etc. EDIT: Church has pics of the system here:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=124072.0